|
evanwish
Dec 11, 2009, 7:44 PM
Post #3 of 27
(3409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
awe bummer! she even got caught at 4am!!!! ugh...
|
|
|
|
|
Ericss42
Dec 11, 2009, 8:14 PM
Post #4 of 27
(3374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2007
Posts: 13
|
God damn passerbyers like this who called the cops.
"Uh, hello, 911?... there's this person doing something that I'm unfamiliar with, and because I have no idea what she is doing, I have opted call you, because she is probably drunk...
What's that? No, I haven't tried speaking with her to check if she's ok or knows what she is doing. No, she doesn't look like she's in trouble at the moment... But really, I don't know why anyone would climb on something, it doesn't make sense. She's not making sense, and therefore she is probably intoxicated. I have no knowledge here, but to justify this lack of knowledge I am going to bet that she is doing something wrong. Did I mention that she looks young? You should really get down here ASAP."
To be fair, if I was at a crag and there were kids at the top stumbling around, I would feel obligated to intervene immediately. But calling the police would definitely not be #1 on my list of possible actions. More of like a, "Hey, do you guys fully realize what you are doing right now?"
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
Dec 11, 2009, 10:36 PM
Post #5 of 27
(3322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
Ericss42 wrote: God damn passerbyers like this who called the cops. "Uh, hello, 911?... there's this person doing something that I'm unfamiliar with, and because I have no idea what she is doing, I have opted call you, because she is probably drunk... What's that? No, I haven't tried speaking with her to check if she's ok or knows what she is doing. No, she doesn't look like she's in trouble at the moment... But really, I don't know why anyone would climb on something, it doesn't make sense. She's not making sense, and therefore she is probably intoxicated. I have no knowledge here, but to justify this lack of knowledge I am going to bet that she is doing something wrong. Did I mention that she looks young? You should really get down here ASAP." To be fair, if I was at a crag and there were kids at the top stumbling around, I would feel obligated to intervene immediately. But calling the police would definitely not be #1 on my list of possible actions. More of like a, "Hey, do you guys fully realize what you are doing right now?"
second...
but its also just a "unnecessary" liability that the city does not want to deal with.. but then again, the charge seemed sort of contrived as well.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Dec 12, 2009, 1:43 AM
Post #6 of 27
(3210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
|
|
|
|
|
rainman0915
Dec 12, 2009, 2:39 AM
Post #7 of 27
(3168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2008
Posts: 233
|
evanwish wrote: Ericss42 wrote: God damn passerbyers like this who called the cops. "Uh, hello, 911?... there's this person doing something that I'm unfamiliar with, and because I have no idea what she is doing, I have opted call you, because she is probably drunk... What's that? No, I haven't tried speaking with her to check if she's ok or knows what she is doing. No, she doesn't look like she's in trouble at the moment... But really, I don't know why anyone would climb on something, it doesn't make sense. She's not making sense, and therefore she is probably intoxicated. I have no knowledge here, but to justify this lack of knowledge I am going to bet that she is doing something wrong. Did I mention that she looks young? You should really get down here ASAP." To be fair, if I was at a crag and there were kids at the top stumbling around, I would feel obligated to intervene immediately. But calling the police would definitely not be #1 on my list of possible actions. More of like a, "Hey, do you guys fully realize what you are doing right now?" second... but its also just a "unnecessary" liability that the city does not want to deal with.. but then again, the charge seemed sort of contrived as well.
liability to who other then herself?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Dec 12, 2009, 5:55 AM
Post #8 of 27
(3109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated.
The world is fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Dec 12, 2009, 6:11 AM
Post #9 of 27
(3098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked.
I was just about to post the same thing...
In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Dec 12, 2009, 6:21 AM
Post #10 of 27
(3090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate?
Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Dec 12, 2009, 12:42 PM
Post #11 of 27
(3029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent.
Don't you know? That jackboot on your throat is keeping you safe!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 12, 2009, 1:33 PM
Post #12 of 27
(3013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Apparently, the activity is not quite as unregulated as the charges claim.
|
|
|
|
|
jcrew
Dec 12, 2009, 6:34 PM
Post #14 of 27
(2914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2006
Posts: 673
|
shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent.
unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Dec 12, 2009, 8:23 PM
Post #15 of 27
(2877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
jcrew wrote: shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent. unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable.
I'm inclined to agree in all cases, except for seatbelt laws. Those, I agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Dec 12, 2009, 8:31 PM
Post #16 of 27
(2867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
irregularpanda wrote: jcrew wrote: shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent. unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable. I'm inclined to agree in all cases, except for seatbelt laws. Those, I agree with.
Yeah, and somebody agrees with everything. That's the problem. Minority agreement gives the impression of legitimacy to these people who are taking us closer and closer to an Orwellian existence.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Dec 12, 2009, 8:56 PM
Post #17 of 27
(2848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
shockabuku wrote: irregularpanda wrote: jcrew wrote: shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent. unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable. I'm inclined to agree in all cases, except for seatbelt laws. Those, I agree with. Yeah, and somebody agrees with everything. That's the problem. Minority agreement gives the impression of legitimacy to these people who are taking us closer and closer to an Orwellian existence.
First of all, my "Live Free or Die" state still does not mandate seat belts for adults. I guess New Hampshire may be Darwins biggest fan.
Second, in a world where people can sue corporations for hot coffee being hot, or falling on icy steps that were slippery, then it is no stretch for someone to fall off a public venue and sue the town, state, province, territory, architect, homeless person in the attached alleyway for damages. Throw enough darts at a stone wall, and one might just stick! I am sure the cops were just protecting the town from potential lawsuits that may set a precedent.
Buildering is rarely looked upon as a valid pursuit outside of our community.
(This post was edited by edge on Dec 12, 2009, 8:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Dec 12, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #18 of 27
(2831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
edge wrote: shockabuku wrote: irregularpanda wrote: jcrew wrote: shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent. unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable. I'm inclined to agree in all cases, except for seatbelt laws. Those, I agree with. Yeah, and somebody agrees with everything. That's the problem. Minority agreement gives the impression of legitimacy to these people who are taking us closer and closer to an Orwellian existence. First of all, my "Live Free or Die" state still does not mandate seat belts for adults. I guess New Hampshire may be Darwins biggest fan. Second, in a world where people can sue corporations for hot coffee being hot, or falling on icy steps that were slippery, then it is no stretch for someone to fall off a public venue and sue the town, state, province, territory, architect, homeless person in the attached alleyway for damages. Throw enough darts at a stone wall, and one might just stick! I am sure the cops were just protecting the town from potential lawsuits that may set a precedent. Buildering is rarely looked upon as a valid pursuit outside of our community.
Not sure I get your point there, if you have one. Maybe this ought to be moved to Soapbox. I don't go there, it makes me too angry.
|
|
|
|
|
fist
Dec 13, 2009, 3:56 AM
Post #19 of 27
(2739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2008
Posts: 47
|
irregularpanda wrote: jcrew wrote: shockabuku wrote: agdavis wrote: shockabuku wrote: The thread title implies that all high risk activity should be regulated. The world is fucked. I was just about to post the same thing... In my opinion, if you are not jeopardizing anyone's life but your own, why regulate? Because other people, smarter, wiser, better people (usually known as politicians) know what's good for you better than you do. And if you're endangering your life you must be incompetent. unfortunately, it's not just high risk activity that control freaks seek to regulate. if you look at it, it's almost every activity imaginable. I'm inclined to agree in all cases, except for seatbelt laws. Those, I agree with.
Seatbelt laws are ridiculous. If you're so dumb that you don't realize that you should wear a seatbelt in a car then you deserve to die
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Dec 13, 2009, 5:53 AM
Post #20 of 27
(2697 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
evanwish wrote: ... but then again, the charge seemed sort of contrived ...
Indeed! I interpret "unregulated" to mean that there is no law prohibiting the activity. In other words, they have a law that allows the authorities to charge people for actions that are not against the law. It would seem that contriving charges is written into Queensland's legal code. What a place!
I'm no lawyer, but in the US there is a prohibition against "ex post facto" prosecutions of this sort.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Dec 13, 2009, 6:09 AM
Post #21 of 27
(2690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
shimanilami wrote: evanwish wrote: ... but then again, the charge seemed sort of contrived ... Indeed! I interpret "unregulated" to mean that there is no law prohibiting the activity. In other words, they have a law that allows the authorities to charge people for actions that are not against the law. It would seem that contriving charges is written into Queensland's legal code. What a place! I'm no lawyer, but in the US there is a prohibition against "ex post facto" prosecutions of this sort.
Maybe this law actually says you are legally prohibited from doing things that aren't specifically permitted (e.g. regulated). Now there's a government that's looking out for you.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Dec 13, 2009, 6:24 AM
Post #22 of 27
(2678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
shimanilami wrote: evanwish wrote: ... but then again, the charge seemed sort of contrived ... Indeed! I interpret "unregulated" to mean that there is no law prohibiting the activity. In other words, they have a law that allows the authorities to charge people for actions that are not against the law. It would seem that contriving charges is written into Queensland's legal code. What a place! I'm no lawyer, but in the US there is a prohibition against "ex post facto" prosecutions of this sort.
Adj. 1. unregulated - not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline; "unregulated off-shore fishing"
regulated - controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature"
2. unregulated - without regulation or discipline; "an unregulated environment"
unstructured - lacking definite structure or organization; "an unstructured situation with no one in authority"; "a neighborhood gang with a relatively unstructured system"; "children in an unstructured environment often feel insecure"; "unstructured inkblots"
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
Dec 13, 2009, 8:26 AM
Post #23 of 27
(2659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
edge wrote: Buildering is rarely looked upon as a valid pursuit outside of our community.
and rarely inside of it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Dec 14, 2009, 6:51 PM
Post #24 of 27
(2559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
edge wrote: Second, in a world where people can sue corporations for...falling on icy steps that were slippery...
I don't know the ordinances where you live, but this is relevant in my area:
In reply to: § 419.03 REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE. Every tenant, occupant or owner having the care or charge of any land or building fronting on any street in the city, where there is a sidewalk paved with concrete, brick, stone or other material shall, within twenty-four (24) hours after the fall of any snow or sleet, or the accumulation of ice caused by freezing rainfall, cause the same to be removed from the sidewalk.
I agree that we live in an overly litigious society, but that's a really poor example. Not removing snow and ice in a reasonable timeframe is one of my pet peeves, and I think companies and individuals should be fined out the ass for violations. A bit off-topic, but there it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 14, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #25 of 27
(2516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
edge wrote: Second, in a world where people can sue corporations for hot coffee being hot, or falling on icy steps that were slippery, then it is no stretch for someone to fall off a public venue and sue the town, state, province, territory, architect, homeless person in the attached alleyway for damages. Throw enough darts at a stone wall, and one might just stick! I am sure the cops were just protecting the town from potential lawsuits that may set a precedent.
Burglar sues homeowner who shot him
Burglar sues store because employees shot him
Burglar sues naked homeowner after having his jaw broken by a baseball bat
Burglar sues homeowner after being beaten after being lured back to house by the homeowner
I tried, but wasn't able to find any sucessful cases out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
